tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-57754122016-10-14T11:41:51.473-04:00The Transplanted TexanA webjournal of ideas, comments, and various other miscellany from a Texan university student (with occasional input from his family) living in Toronto, Ontario. Can you say "culture shock?"Austinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02425330320412785184noreply@blogger.comBlogger478125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5775412.post-1119407524214107112005-06-21T22:32:00.000-04:002005-06-21T22:32:04.266-04:00Here Goes AgainI'm a slave to the memes:
<br />
<br /><center><a href="http://enneagraminstitute.com"><img src="http://enneagraminstitute.com/icons/type2M.gif" border=0 alt="Enneagram"></a>free enneagram test</center>
<br />
<br />[Seen first at <a href="http://popsnbuzzes.blogspot.com/2005/06/help-im-addicted-to-personality-tests.html">Brian's blog</a>, then <a href="http://www.crookedbush.com/cgi-bin/weblog.pl/2005/06/21#The_Bandwagon-_Perso">Jason</a> jumped on board.]Austinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02425330320412785184noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5775412.post-1119276661062266222005-06-20T10:11:00.000-04:002005-06-20T10:11:04.446-04:00If Your Friends All Jumped Over A Cliff...Well, then I guess I would, too. Here are my results from the "theological worldview" meme/quiz going around my friends' blogs:
<br />
<br /><table border='0' cellpadding='5' cellspacing='0' width='600'><tr><td><img src='http://images.quizfarm.com/1118094766wesley-john.jpg'></td><td> You scored as <b>Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan</b>. You are an evangelical in the Wesleyan tradition. You believe that God's grace enables you to choose to believe in him, even though you yourself are totally depraved. The gift of the Holy Spirit gives you assurance of your salvation, and he also enables you to live the life of obedience to which God has called us. You are influenced heavly by John Wesley and the Methodists.<br><br><table border='0' width='300' cellspacing='0' cellpadding='0'><tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='75' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>75%</font></td></tr><tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Reformed Evangelical</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='68' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>68%</font></td></tr><tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Neo orthodox</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='54' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>54%</font></td></tr><tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Emergent/Postmodern</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='50' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>50%</font></td></tr><tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Fundamentalist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='46' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>46%</font></td></tr><tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Classical Liberal</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='46' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>46%</font></td></tr><tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Roman Catholic</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='29' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>29%</font></td></tr><tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Charismatic/Pentecostal</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='25' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>25%</font></td></tr><tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Modern Liberal</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='21' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>21%</font></td></tr></td></tr></table><br><a href='http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870'>What&#039;s your theological worldview?</a><br><font face='Arial' size='1'>created with <a href='http://quizfarm.com'>QuizFarm.com</a></font></table>
<br />
<br />[Seen at <a href="http://landofmysojourn.blogspot.com/2005/06/im-wesleyan.html">Brian's other place</a>, and <a href="http://www.crookedbush.com/cgi-bin/weblog.pl/2005/06/18#What_I_Believe">Jason's</a>, and <a href="http://albaker.blogspot.com/2005/06/i-am-emergentpostmodern.html">Al's</a>.]Austinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02425330320412785184noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5775412.post-1117631987028359042005-06-01T09:19:00.000-04:002005-06-01T15:09:56.626-04:00Want Me To Post?Then get me angry. Callimachus has just such a <a href="http://vernondent.blogspot.com/2005/05/genocide-what-genocide.html">post</a> on the International Red Cross.<br /><blockquote>Just a reminder that the same International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) that is so aghast over America's "war crimes" knew about the Nazi atrocities during World War II and essentially did nothing, allowing itself to be fooled by transparent ruses and official denials.<br /><br />It knew about the concentration camps as early as 1942. In February 1945, the President of the Red Cross wrote to a U.S. official: "Concerning the Jewish problem in Germany we are in close and continual contact with the German authorities." How chilling that the ICRC pretended to care about the Holocaust while in the same sentences adopting Nazi phraseology ("the Jewish problem") to euphemize it.<br /><br />The Red Cross also knew about crimes against POWs...<br /><br />A ICRC report on Stalag IX-B noted the same segregation, but the report said "no other discrimination was made against them." No, indeed, unless you count the Jewish-Americans -- along with about 330 non-Jews -- being sent to a slave labor camp associated with Buchenwald, where American POWs died at a higher rate than they would anywhere else during the war.<br /><br />But Gitmo, now that's a war crime!</blockquote>Not a single penny from me (and I will seek to convince those close to me) will go to the International Red Cross or any of its chapters. They obviously haven't changed an iota: <a href="http://www.scrapbookpages.com/CzechRepublic/Theresienstadt/TheresienstadtGhetto/History/RedCrossVisit.html">once</a> water-carriers for genocidists, <a href="http://www.nationalinterest.org/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=1ABA92EFCD8348688A4EBEB3D69D33EF&tier=4&id=B459C0ABAA114110B83547620E9C3093">always</a> their water-carriers. Scum.<br /><br /><div class="update">UPDATE</div><br /><a href="http://varifrank.com/archives/2005/05/hello_amnesty_i_1.php">More of the same</a>, this time from Amnesty International.<br /><br /><div class="update">UPDATE THE SECOND</div><br />Just for "joey," here's <a href="http://austinbay.net/blog/index.php?p=369">more</a> on Amnesty International. And still <a href="http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2005/06/what_happened_t.php">more</a>.<br /><br />And looky <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/25/AR2005052501838.html">here</a>! Even the vaunted Left is drawing similar conclusions.<br /><br />David at <a href="http://www.cronaca.com/archives/003509.html">Cronaca</a> puts it well:<br /><blockquote>It doesn't take any particular political slant to be concerned about what is going on in Guantanamo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. But at the same time, it should be obvious that these are cases of military detention, the byproduct of actual shooting warfare -- despite the Amnesty report's constant attempts to scare quote this fact away. There may be some ugly stuff going on, but excesses in war are fundamentally different from abuses of power in times of peace.<br /><br />The labeling of Guantanamo as "the gulag of our time" shows just how far Amnesty has lost its compass. Compare Guantanamo to Colditz or Andersonville or Hoa Lo, if you will; the Soviet comparison is as obscene as if the referent had been the Holocaust. And if Amnesty's obsession with indicting the USA has led it to trivialize the worst crimes of the 20th century, we shouldn't be surprised to see it similarly diverted from giving due weight to the worst of the 21st.</blockquote>Austinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02425330320412785184noreply@blogger.com19tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5775412.post-1117597211752623242005-05-31T23:40:00.000-04:002005-05-31T23:40:11.760-04:00The Trouble With BloggingHmmm...
<br />
<br />Like <a href="http://www.crookedbush.com">Jason</a> has said (more than once!): with me it's either a drought or a downpour. And it's true. I have to get worked up about an issue to post, otherwise I merely peruse my daily reads (I believe they now number 98) and file away the various tidbits in my brain for later use without posting on them.
<br />
<br />I suppose it's that I don't find much that I would consider post-worthy. Plus you add in the fact that I'm mired in the middle of a large writing slog at the moment...and you get what this place has become: sporadic.
<br />
<br />I'm really itching to just start over from scratch - register a domain, grab some server space, design a site that is tailored to what I want it to do...but it's one of those tasks that is appealing, but never quite within reach, never accessible enough to begin.
<br />
<br />Sigh.
<br />
<br />Eventually, I'll work up enough steam to pull myself out of the muck. I hope it's sooner, rather than later.Austinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02425330320412785184noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5775412.post-1117236881985362092005-05-27T19:34:00.000-04:002005-05-27T19:34:42.040-04:00The Liberty Test<a href="http://libertycorner.blogspot.com/2005/05/where-do-you-draw-line.html">Interesting.</a>
<br />
<br />I agreed with 1-9 (not without some hesitation and consideration, mind), and in the follow-ups, I was measured a "libertarian realist."
<br />
<br />[HatTip to <a href="http://halifax.blogspot.com/2005/05/i-made-it-through-number-7.html">Ben</a>.]Austinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02425330320412785184noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5775412.post-1117029781479207442005-05-25T10:03:00.000-04:002005-05-25T10:03:01.536-04:00The Blog Side<a href="http://mfdh.ca/starwars/darth-vader/">Vader's thoughts</a> made available via the miracle that is the InterWeb.
<br />
<br />(Yeah, I'm late to the party...)Austinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02425330320412785184noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5775412.post-1116903922632752002005-05-23T23:05:00.000-04:002005-05-23T23:07:14.460-04:00How Sweet It Is...Oh, now <a href="http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000929389">this</a> is something I must have.<br /><br />I might even have to pick it up at <a href="http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.gsp?dest=9999999997&product_id=3430656&sourceid=0100000030660805302498">Wal-Mart</a>.Austinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02425330320412785184noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5775412.post-1116691476005555702005-05-21T12:04:00.000-04:002005-05-21T12:06:17.840-04:00Sporadic Quote Of The DayIt isn't up at <a href="http://www.georgejonas.ca/journalism.cfm">his website</a> just yet (and thus is still behind a subscriber wall at <a href="http://www.nationalpost.com">the National Post</a>), but come tomorrow (or shortly thereafter) it should be. In the meantime, you're just going to have to take my word for the sourcing (and when have I ever been wrong?):<br /><blockquote>"[Affirmative action] highlights the least important aspect of a person's identity. We don't go to the theatre to see a Danish Male. We go to see Hamlet."<br />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;-- George Jonas, "A Fancy Name For Tribalism," National Post, 5/20/05</blockquote>While you're waiting for his latest column to go up, take a look at <a href="http://www.georgejonas.ca/recent_writing.cfm?id=314">his previous one</a> (which touches on a similar subject).Austinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02425330320412785184noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5775412.post-1116628771257404692005-05-20T18:39:00.000-04:002005-05-21T00:52:24.033-04:00It's Spreading...<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/05/20/cuba.rally/">Presented</a> without comment.<br /><br />[HatTip to <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/05_05_15_corner-archive.asp#063835">The Corner</a>.]<br /><br /><div class="update">UPDATE</div>More on these developments <a href="http://freethoughts.splinder.com/post/4824465">here</a> and <a href="http://www.babalublog.com/">here</a> (just keep scrolling).<br /><br />[Another HatTip to <a href="http://instapundit.com/archives/023165.php">Instapundit</a>.]Austinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02425330320412785184noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5775412.post-1116598954436190952005-05-20T10:22:00.000-04:002005-05-20T10:22:34.510-04:00A Short SilenceI'm gonna be out of the house for most of the day, so don't look for much posting out of me for the next 24 hours. In the meantime, take a look at (or solace in) Ben's <a href="http://halifax.blogspot.com/2005/05/silver-linings.html">silver lining(s)</a>.Austinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02425330320412785184noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5775412.post-1116555495992616812005-05-19T22:18:00.000-04:002005-05-19T22:18:16.063-04:00Tie Goes...<a href="http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1116503504129_8/?hub=TopStories">...to the Government</a>. I thought as much, though I must confess I figured that the two independents (Cadman and Kilgour) would vote the opposite of the way they each did (Cadman wound up pro-Liberal, Kilgour anti-).
<br />
<br />I wonder how many more scandals we'll see unveiled in the coming months? And I wonder if Mr. Harper will ever <a href="http://letitbleed.blogs.com/blog/2005/05/oh_for_the_luvv.html">toughen up</a>? Heck, I want to see how convoluted Mr. Martin's spine becomes! Should be a lively few months.Austinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02425330320412785184noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5775412.post-1116535254169869902005-05-19T16:40:00.000-04:002005-05-19T16:40:54.213-04:00A Reason For Hope?Huh. Well, it seems that the more corrupt the Canadian government gets, the more it attracts the attention of bloggers and news outlets south of the border. This latest post is from <a href="http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2005/05/great-white-north-drama-surrounding.html">Belmont Club</a>, who has quite an interesting take:
<br /><blockquote>What characterizes much of the Left today as exemplified by behavior from George Galloway to Paul Martin is the increasing necessity to maintain their position By Any Means Necessary. While that is dangerous and infuriating, it is a reliable indicator that they have lost control of the system. Things just aren't working the way they used to. And that, despite everything, is cause for hope.</blockquote>Canadian Conservatives despair, and American Conservatives whisper words of encouragement, as they point to a light at the end of the tunnel.Austinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02425330320412785184noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5775412.post-1116531818824161512005-05-19T15:43:00.000-04:002005-05-19T15:43:38.890-04:00This One's HotThe typically incendiary Ann Coulter <a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20050518/cm_ucac/newsweekdissembledmuslimsdismembered/nc:742">strikes again</a>.
<br /><blockquote>How about the media adding to the list of reasons not to run a news item: "Protecting the national interest"? If journalists don't like the ring of that, how about this one: "Protecting ourselves before the American people rise up and lynch us for our relentless anti-American stories."</blockquote>Oh, can I ever hear the fallout from this one...Austinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02425330320412785184noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5775412.post-1116524995599576162005-05-19T13:49:00.000-04:002005-05-19T14:07:45.826-04:00Public Service AnnouncementThere are a number of blogs (most of them, in fact) that I am content to skim via my <a href="http://www.bloglines.com">RSS Feed Aggregator</a>. But there are a few that, though they show up <i>en tot&aacute;l</i> as inline text in the reader, I am compelled to click through, and read every word. <a href="http://vernondent.blogspot.com/">Done With Mirrors</a> is one such blog. If you aren't reading Callimachus every day, you're missing out on some of the most insightful analysis I've seen anywhere. It's like candy for the mind.Austinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02425330320412785184noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5775412.post-1116524614967288102005-05-19T13:43:00.000-04:002005-05-19T13:43:34.973-04:00Down For The Count?Ooof...
<br />
<br />Had a bit of a minor medical procedure this morning. I didn't think it would take this much out of me, but sure enough, here I am - completely useless. Ugh. And feeling miserable.
<br />
<br />Hopefully this will pass soon.Austinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02425330320412785184noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5775412.post-1116471171297603102005-05-18T22:52:00.000-04:002005-05-18T22:53:11.656-04:00Don't Look Now......and saying so might jinx it - but it looks like...maybe...I'm back.<br /><br />[<i>SHHHH!!!!</i> - ed.]Austinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02425330320412785184noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5775412.post-1116470573870518252005-05-18T22:42:00.000-04:002005-05-18T22:46:52.670-04:00Bravo!<a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/front/breaking_news/story/310700p-265821c.html">This</a> may very well be one of the few (or the only) things for which I can say I side with Trump:<br /><blockquote>Standing in the lobby of his Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue, Trump presented a model of his own envisioned [World Trade Center] towers, reflecting the original shape and height of the skyscrapers felled on Sept. 11, 2001.<br /><br />Trump's design...centers around two 111-story towers - one floor taller than the buildings destroyed when two jetliners were flown into them.</blockquote><a href="http://www.maderblog.com/archives/2005/05/index.html#a001840">Build it again, but bigger. And better.</a><br /><br />Right on.Austinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02425330320412785184noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5775412.post-1116434743061321742005-05-18T12:45:00.000-04:002005-05-18T12:47:56.416-04:00On The Other Hand...<a href="http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004502.php">Captain Ed</a> (who may have single-handedly <a href="http://politicalstaples.blogspot.com/2005/04/medias-history_09.html">brought down the Gomery publication ban</a>) has a slightly more optimistic take on the state of CPC affairs:<br /><blockquote>Ironically, Stronach's defection may have forced Harper into a smarter strategy. Martin's budget had gained popular support even among some Tories, although they indicated support for Harper and his no-confidence effort. However, Harper now has to recognize that the budget may wind up working against him for the upcoming vote, and that the attraction may yet pull away the independents he needs to win a no-confidence vote and bring down the Liberals.<br /><br />The amendment, which all sides agree amounts to a separate confidence vote, really presents the crux of the Tory argument against continued Liberal rule...<br /><br />...the amendments do almost nothing for the independents on whom Harper must rely for assistance to toss out Martin and force new elections. The primary budget had a lot to offer Cadman and Kilgour, but the amendment does nothing for them, and they can vote against it without worrying what they'll get with a Tory budget in its place. If they have an inclination to jettison Liberal rule -- and Kilgour already indicated he did -- then the amendment gives them the best opportunity to pull the trigger.</blockquote><br />[HatTip to <a href="http://politicalstaples.blogspot.com/2005/05/c-43-vs-c-48.html">Greg</a>.]Austinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02425330320412785184noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5775412.post-1116433487496721172005-05-18T12:24:00.000-04:002005-05-18T12:30:16.220-04:00Be It So Moved...<a href="http://letitbleed.blogs.com/blog/2005/05/oh_for_the_luvv.html">Bob Tarantino</a> for Leader Of The CPC. [<i>Emphasis in original</i>.]<br /><blockquote>Remember a couple of weeks back when Paul Martin was unveiling a new promise every day? Why were the Tories not unveiling planks from their election platform? Why is there no equivalent of the Red Book or the Common Sense Revolution? Why are we wasting time with byzantine parliamentary tactics? Perhaps it's because the choice which is being presented to the electorate is so mundane: 'switch the managers of the ship of state; we won't rock the boat too much; we'll just be less corrupt; we promise'. The Conservatives should not be afraid of being conservative. And should not be afraid of telling Canadians what that means. To pick a random example, are we in favour of greater privatization of the health care system? Great. <i>Explain</i> that. Explain <i>why</i>. Explain what the proposed changes will <i>mean</i>. Don't shy away and mewl that discussions about greater privatization are the work of independent think tanks and in no way reflect what the party's policies actually are. <i>Then</i> maybe we'll start seeing dramatic changes in public support. We can be sure of one thing at least: the current strategy isn't working.</blockquote>Austinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02425330320412785184noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5775412.post-1116345216520921712005-05-17T11:53:00.000-04:002005-05-18T12:30:47.873-04:00The Final StrawThat's it. I'm done with Canadian politics. [<i>Not that you'd written anything about it for, like, ever.</i> - ed. Hush, you!]<br /><br />Two headlines from <a href="http://nealenews.com/">NealeNews</a>:<br /><br />"<a href="http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=51f88a66-2d1f-4220-87f1-fbd326366cbd">Nfld Tory MPs Fear Backlash: May vote with Liberals...</a>"<br />"<a href="http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1116339348919_111748548/?hub=TopStories">Belinda Stronach Defects To Liberals: Sells Out For A Cabinet Post</a>"<br /><br />Two thoughts:<br />1) Canadians are so easy to bribe. No wonder the Mafia is doing so well here. You don't even have to offer them ANYTHING - just take their money away, and promise to (maybe) give it back, if the budget passes...maybe. In fifteen years. That's what you call "pathetic." I'm tempted to pull out a variety of historical references, but it would just debase them. Canada is too pathetic to merit historical comparison.<br /><br />2) Stronach is beneath contempt. "Oh, sure, I'll enable the continuation of the most corrupt Canadian regime in history - one that steals [<i><b>Literally</b> steals</i> - ed. What did I say?] money from its own citizens. Just gimme a piece of that action."<br /><br />Enough. You truly want to live in a <a href="http://halifax.blogspot.com/2005/05/constitutional-crisis-roundup.html">Banana Dominion</a>? Go right ahead and move to Canada. Me, I'm swearing off caring about Canadian politics. It's <b>way</b> too easy to predict. [<i>Plus, you get to spare yourself disappointment at the inevitable re-election of The Criminal Party.</i> - ed. Last warning!]<br /><br />Celebrate my descent into cynicism! Now, no matter what happens, I get to laugh at everybody. How freeing is that?<br /><br />More reactions: <a href="http://halifax.blogspot.com/2005/05/more-on-belinda.html">from Ben</a> and <a href="http://noncogent.blogspot.com/2005/05/belinda-stronach-defects-to-liberal.html">Brock</a> (especially Mike's final paragraph in <a href="http://noncogent.blogspot.com/2005/05/belinda-stronach-defects-to-liberal.html#ff80808103e68f3e0103eb46fe82028a">this follow-up comment</a>.)Austinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02425330320412785184noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5775412.post-1111601799556440412005-03-23T13:16:00.000-05:002005-03-23T13:16:39.556-05:00A Sporadic Quote Of The DayToday's <a href="http://www.newcriterion.com/weblog/2005/03/passion-as-fashion.html">entry</a> arrives via <a href="http://www.newcriterion.com/">The New Criterion</a>'s blog <a href="http://www.newcriterion.com/weblog/armavirumque.html">Armavirumque</a>:
<br /><blockquote>The point here, of course, is that passion--like patriotism, benevolence, free speech, etc. etc.--is nothing by itself; indeed, it is often very bad by itself. It must serve some end other than noisy self-aggrandizement...</blockquote>- Stefan Beck, "Passion as Fashion," 3-22-05Austinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02425330320412785184noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5775412.post-1111208155187585512005-03-18T23:55:00.000-05:002005-03-18T23:55:55.186-05:00Another Controversy!Sort of.
<br />
<br />So Law Professor @ UCLA Eugene Volokh examined the Iranian system of capital punishment and came up with some <a href="http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1111184598.shtml">startling statements</a> vis a vis cruelty and its use in punishment. (That's a collected post page - just start at the top and read your way down). Now that the back-and-forth over Same Sex Marriage has subsided a little, I propose we move on to the topic raised by the professor - should make for some lively discussion!
<br />
<br />[HatTip to Jeff Goldstein, who makes <a href="http://www.celluloid-wisdom.com/pw/index.php?/weblog/entry/18149/">an interesting point</a> in his response, as well.]Austinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02425330320412785184noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5775412.post-1110642701179195072005-03-15T12:20:00.000-05:002005-03-15T12:26:49.013-05:00Political vs. Spiritual Continued...Whew! Sorry this is so late in coming, but as you can see, I've got quite a bit to say, and it took a while to get it all together...and readable.<br /><br />To begin, a recap: Jason <a href="http://www.crookedbush.com/cgi-bin/weblog.pl/2005/03/11#SEX:_Should_We_Chang">clarifies</a> his side of the argument in response to <a href="http://popsnbuzzes.blogspot.com">Brian's</a> post on the subject. Go ahead and read 'em both. I'll wait.<br /><br />Back? Let's begin.<br /><br />First, a point I haven't seen either Jason or Brian touch on: the Christian faith is a relational faith. This means that my relationship with Christ, my relationships with fellow believers, and my relationships with unbelievers are the core of my faith. Whatever influence the Christian faith has is meant to be exerted through those relationships, as exemplified by Christ's interactions with those same groups. Working from this premise, it seems that enacting legislation relating to sinful behavior is the diametric opposite of that toward which Christians should be working. (There is a lot to hammer out and clarify on this too-wide generalization, but it does not directly apply to the topic at hand.) I'll let C.S. Lewis make the point better than I could hope to:<br /><blockquote>"Christianity tells people to repent and promises them forgiveness. It therefore has nothing (as far as I know) to say to people who do not know they have done anything to repent of and who do not feel that they need any forgiveness. It is after you have realised that there is a real Moral Law, and a Power behind the law, and that you have broken that law and put yourself wrong with that Power - it is after all this, and not a moment sooner, that Christianity begins to talk."</blockquote>- C.S. Lewis, <i><a href="http://lib.ru/LEWISCL/mere_engl.txt">Mere Christianity</a></i><br /><br />This is not to say that unbelievers are not sinful (of course they are), nor that we should ignore their sins (of course we shouldn't). Just that we can't expect them not to be sinful, <b>nor to appreciate the true difference</b> between sin and righteousness without the revelation that comes upon every believer at the time of belief. As put by St. Augustine:<br /><blockquote>"I believe, in order to understand; and I understand, the better to believe."</blockquote>- <i>Sermo</i> 43, 7, 9: PL 38, 257-258.<br /><br />Here, then, is point 1: Christianity is primarily, and perhaps wholly, relational. Any influence it will have is on those who come into contact with it directly. Those who do not believe, by internal definition, do not understand - for to understand, they must believe. And as we can derive from Lewis (and as he later spells out), as human beings, we can no more expect an unbeliever to understand the "Moral Law" than we can expect an infant to understand quantum physics. Do we hold infants responsible for this lack of comprehension? Of course not. Neither can <b>we</b> (God is another matter) hold unbelievers responsible for that which they cannot know ("<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2010:14-15;&version=49;">How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?</a>").<br /><br />Corollary: I want to spell this out, just so I'm not misunderstood. I'm not saying that there is no point to conversing with nonbelievers about moral issues. Quite the opposite. I'm saying we <b>must</b> converse with them about moral issues (and primarily about the single most important issue that faces us: who is Christ?). What I'm trying to get across, however roundabout the manner, is that we cannot expect them to agree to the imposition of the Moral Law as codified secular legislation without some argument from outside the spiritual realm. Unless, of course, we engage them in discussions about the spiritual first.<br /><br />On to the second point: virtue enforced is no virtue at all. If you have no choice but to tell the truth, how is that commendable? <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/index.php?search=matthew%205:46-47&version=31">If you only love those who love you, how is that virtuous</a>? Doing good is only virtue if there is some other thing that one could do instead. This is, at its centre, the nature of a free will.<br /><br />By preventing sin through government power and penalty - by attempting to remove free will from the picture - we are no more "saving" unbelievers than if they were able to go about sinning freely. Indeed, it is not the government's place to ensure that its citizens do not sin (more on this later), even in a Christian nation (if such a thing exists). How much less so in an unChristian or antiChristian nation?<br /><br />Working to change people (and not just their behavior) <b>through government</b> is not only impossible and undesirable, it is antithetical to the Christian experience.<br /><br />Point three: In democracies, the government is a reflection of the culture. Therefore, to change the government, one must change the culture. And what defines the culture? Its people.<br /><br />Do you want to protect marriage? Great - make sure your own is doing well, and do all you can to help your friends. You want to protect the legal definition of marriage? Okay. Then you've got to start convincing people that you have the right notion of what marriage should and should not be, and that doesn't begin with the marriage issue. You must convince them that there is a "Moral Law" out there, set down by a Higher Power, and that that Moral Law has very clear guidelines for the joining of a man and a woman. It starts with evangelism, the foundation of which is set by living out your relationship with Christ through your relationships with others. Then, once the terms are defined (so to speak), we can begin discussing the legal definition of marriage.<br /><br />This is a massive undertaking and a slow one. It's also the way to ensure genuine cultural change.<br /><br />Point four:<br /><blockquote>He has shown you, O man, what is good; <br /> And what does the LORD require of you <br /> But to do justly, <br /> To love mercy, <br /> And to walk humbly with your God?</blockquote><br />- <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=micah%206:8;&version=50;">Micah 6:8</a>.<br /><br />As Christians, we are commanded to do justice, and to see justice done. So the question posed is: is marriage, in this instance, an issue of justice for which all of Christendom must be roused? Certainly the Civil Rights Movement in the US was such an issue. People were being horribly treated, and change was too slow in coming. But as I'm so quick to point out to any who will listen, the differences between Martin Luther King, Jr.'s peaceful marches and the push for Same-Sex Marriage are vast. There is no issue of justice here on the side of homosexuals seeking recognition under the law - but neither is there injustice against heterosexuals. This is not an issue of justice at all. (See: all individuals are treated equally under the law).<br /><br />So what is the argument against Same-Sex Marriage? As Jason mentions, it is an issue of social stability (in this case, it is also a matter of preserving religious rights and rites, but that's another issue entirely). The definition of marriage as between a man and a woman has been the bedrock upon which the structures of society have grown. To disrupt them is to tinker dangerously with things about which we have little knowledge. Now, social stability (that is, "the public interest") is what government is all about; and, as just stated, we Christians will find arguments from the basis of revealed truth ultimately futile. We can include it to inform our opposition, but in a pluralistic society (or one that makes handwaves toward such status) it cannot and must not be the whole of our position. Therefore, those against the redefinition of marriage must argue from historical experience and prediction, rather than spiritual condemnation.<br /><br />This is why I do not feel that the movement against Same-Sex Marriage is one that should rally Christians everywhere to its cause (though I am sympathetic, and would, if given the opportunity, vote like Brian suggests). It's not that we are to let the sinful world shuffle slowly into Hell. It's that we are to pull it back from the brink through relationship and dialogue, rather than with legislation. Argue before the Larger World about social constructs and legal structures, but our primary function is to witness to individuals. It is the individuals who matter; and it is the individuals, en masse, who hold the power to change the larger world.<br /><br />One final point: marriage is a social foundation, but it is also much more than that. In the Christian experience, marriage is a spiritual construct that has social implications, rather than the other way 'round. It follows, then, that for Christians, it is more important to have God's recognition of your union than it is to have the State's. (One could argue that having the State's recognition is irrelevant, but I'm not going there). While those tax credits and legal exceptions are nice, they aren't what validate a marriage. Assuming I ever find "wedded bliss," I don't need the State to rubber stamp it.<br /><br />Now, there's a lot more to say about Christian involvement in and duty to the legal and social aspects of a democracy (and <a href="http://popsnbuzzes.blogspot.com/2005/03/im-not-done-yet.html">Brian has promised</a> to look into it - personally, I feel that most of it is centered around the commands in Micah 6:8), but as far as SSM is concerned, I think I've exhausted my argument.Austinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02425330320412785184noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5775412.post-1110477529030182142005-03-10T12:58:00.000-05:002005-03-10T12:58:49.030-05:00The Political And The SpiritualBrian has a <a href="http://popsnbuzzes.blogspot.com/2005/03/more-on-same-sex-marriage.html">thoughtful post</a> up with his take on the Same-Sex Marriage situation here in Canada. He and I had a great discussion on this (and other issues) last Sunday, and I have to say that his post fairly closely mirrors my own position. I feel, however, that there are some areas in which we diverge slightly (or rather, where he emphasizes things that I would not and vice versa), and I want to address those. Unfortunately, I don't have the time at the moment. I hope to come back to the issue this evening or tomorrow morning.Austinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02425330320412785184noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5775412.post-1110379249655833982005-03-09T09:40:00.000-05:002005-03-09T09:40:49.656-05:00The Third Annual Int. Eat an Animal for PETA Day...is coming on March 15th. <a href="http://www.yourish.com/archives/2005/mar6-12_2005.html#2005030803">Meryl Yourish</a> has all the details.
<br />
<br />Unintended consequences, and all that...Austinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02425330320412785184noreply@blogger.com4